In his piece on Inforrm yesterday, Keith Mathieson begins by describing the use of CFAs in cases against the media as a “scandal”. Evidently the Supreme Court did not agree with him – unanimously. One of the titles for whom he acts has already described judges with whom they disagree as “Enemies of the people”, so I suppose the judges can count themselves lucky not to have been attacked in similar terms. Continue reading
The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog
Tag: Jonathan Coad (Page 2 of 4)
There are several other reasons why the decision of the House of Lords in Reynolds v Times Newspapers was aberrant. Transferring the risk from huge publishers like Associated Newspapers and News International for publishing false and defamatory material on to modestly remunerated public servants is such as police and army officers is extraordinary enough. Continue reading
For a media lawyer who has been battling “fake news” for his entire career – as well as robustly defending good investigatory journalism – there is a rich irony that the Culture Media and Sport Committee of the House of Commons is belatedly to take an interest in fake news and is engaging in a public consultation. Continue reading
During the Leveson Inquiry, there was, apparently, an intense David versus Goliath battle being fought by Fleet Street. Continue reading
The Court of Appeal gave judgment on 26 July 2016 in a case which the Mirror is suing a young single mother called Stephanie Ward from which whom it stole a story which the paper then published as an “exclusive” on its front page. Continue reading
In a judgment which betrays the complete lack of familiarity the law of defamation of its panel of three the Court of Appeal has overturned decades of precedent on a key issue in defamation proceedings, which is the establishment at an early stage of the defamatory meaning/sting of a publication (the two terms being synonyms). Continue reading
There is ample evidence that when used ethically and while abiding by the sublime ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you‘ principle, social media can be a force for good. It allows the forging of friendships, the increase in understanding between different social and ethnic groups, the communication of ideas and so forth. Continue reading
The PJS v NGN injunction case is just another ugly example of a paid tabloid betrayal/kiss-and- tell story without a shred of genuine public interest while of considerable financial value to both the betrayer and the newspaper. Rarely does a legal case receive so much press attention as when tabloids are outraged by their inability to report on a celebrity threesome they claim is of interest to the public (rather than of legitimate public interest). Continue reading
Just as did its predecessor the Press Complaints Commission, IPSO applies the kind of perverse reasoning to the commercial advantage of its sponsors and creators which you would expect from a regulator which in defiance of both the will of parliament and the public has been set up by the press, funded by the press, the Code written by the press, its personnel appointed by the press, and with press delegates in the form of ex-editors on its complaints committee. Continue reading
The Sun’s notorious “QUEEN BACKS BREXIT” headline was published on 9 March. The Queen’s complaint was made on the same day. Some 10 weeks later Ipso has published its adjudication despite claiming on its website to offer a “speedy resolution” to complaints. Continue reading
Recent Judgments
© 2026 Inforrm's Blog
Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑